Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 25, 2025

In Silico Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Disease
Published on: May 27, 2022
Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A
Robert P Murphy1, Martin J O'Donnell1, Aoife Nolan1
1Health Research Board Clinical Research Facility-Galway National University of Ireland Galway Galway Ireland.
Abstract:
Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a ratio of relative risks (RRRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events, and the primary analysis was a matched comparison of clinical trials using a run-in period versus without a run-in period. We identified 66 run-in trials and 111 non-run-in trials (n=668 901). On meta-analysis there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of treatment effect between run-in trials (relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]) compared with non-run-in trials (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]). There was no significant difference in the RRR for secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (RRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91-1.03]) or medication discontinuation because of adverse events (RRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]). Post hoc exploratory univariate meta-regression showed that on average a run-in period is associated with a statistically significant difference in treatment effect (RRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]) for cardiovascular composite outcome, but this was not statistically significant on multivariable meta-regression analysis (RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]). Conclusions The use of a run-in period was not associated with a difference in the magnitude of treatment effect among cardiovascular prevention trials.
More Related Videos
10:05Testing the Efficacy of Pharmacological Agents in a Pericardial Target Delivery Model in the Swine
Published on: July 7, 2016
05:41Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Ligation for Ischemia-Reperfusion Research: Model Improvement via Technical Modifications and Quality Control
Published on: December 16, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Antianginal Drugs: Calcium Channel Blockers and Ranolazine
CCBs, a diverse class that includes dihydropyridines (nifedipine) and diphenylalkylamines (verapamil and diltiazem), exert their effect by blocking calcium channels in cardiac and smooth muscle cells. This...
Chronopharmacokinetics: Circadian Rhythms and Influence on Drug Response
The time of drug administration is an important factor to consider, as it can influence the toxic dose of a drug. For example, a study conducted by Prins et al. in 1997 examined the effects of the timing of...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Exercise and Cardiovascular Response
Light to moderate physical activity initiates a series of interconnected responses in the body. The heart rate modestly increases in anticipation of the workout, followed by widespread vasodilation as oxygen consumption by skeletal muscles increases. This results in decreased peripheral resistance, increased capillary blood flow, and accelerated...